The Canadian War Museum

I had the opportunity to go to the CWM this pre-rememberance day. For this reason, this post is not going to have the humour of many of my other posts. I had to write a report outlining my observations and I decided to focus on the way that text is presented at a museum, and what is it that makes someone chose to read or ignore parts of the text that is presented. What I observed was museums are a place of individualized experience, and that while some dedicated individuals will read every single piece of information in an exhibit, the majority pick and chose what they are going to read, so that they don't end up spending 8 hours there. Below I offer some analysis as to why we read some text and not others.

The sheer amount of information at museums is often quite overwhelming, and at the CWM, I gravitated towards information that was part of the larger narrative rather than looking for information on specific artifacts or art pieces. In the main gallery, I noticed myself reading panels of text that explained larger implications and meanings of themes presented such as life on the home front, or discussion of nationalism and the South African war. In contrast, I chose not to read text that looked at specific battles, or historic figures. Due to the overwhelming amount of information presented, it is difficult to absorb all available text in a single visit. Reading text on larger themes and narratives provides the observer with the option of getting the most ‘bang for their buck’, in that they are able to construct the larger story with the start, middle, and end. However, with textual overload, the observer often cannot absorb information that would provide colour to the story, or fill the missing gaps. For this, multiple visits may be required. With each visit, you can chose to focus on developing your knowledge on different aspects of knowledge that is presented.

Similarly, I would read text on subjects that I was already aware of. For example, I read the panel explaining rationing at home to provide materials for the war-front. As with the idea of reading panels that discuss the grand narrative, deepening my knowledge on subjects on which I had previous familiarity allowed me to incorporate new information without being overwhelmed. I took my visit as an opportunity to reinforce knowledge already possessed rather than learning specific details regarding areas of Canada’s military history that were completely new to me. Applying this to the general observer, when presented with an over-abundance of text, textual information serves to strengthen pre-existing knowledge and interests. More importantly, by using this approach, it can be inferred that individual observers will focus on different aspects of the gallery’s text, varying with each individual’s previous knowledge and own personal interests.

What I did not read were panels and written text surrounding ‘big ticket’ items, such as Hitler’s car, or large gun displays. In these situations, the artifact became the singular object of focus, and I did not feel the need for additional narrative. The downside of the object becoming the centre of focus is that the context of the object can be lost. While it is true that Hitler’s car is one of the biggest draws of the museum, very few people read the surrounding text to understand how and why Hitler was able to rise to power and the atrocities committed under his rule. As a result, the object is seen simply as a ‘cool’ item. The seriousness of Hitler’s role in WWII is diminished when observers do not take the time to read the information provided in the accompanying text. I fell into the trap that many do of looking at only the item being displayed, and not looking at why this object has significance, and what the object can tell us about a person, place or event. However, this also adds credence to the notion that observers only read text when they can adequately absorb it.

Taking my experience as an observer provided me with an interesting opportunity to analyze the place of text at the CWM.